The Foreman (RLE: Organizations)

Aspects of Task and Structure

David Dunkerley

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Topic: Business
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135932244
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The foreman is usually regarded as a filter in a chain of command in industrial organizations. In this book, however, the author suggests that this view is not adequate, and he proposes instead a model of analysis which employs a systems perspective. The role of the foreman is seen in terms of the interaction of three sub-systems representing the organization, the group and the individual. The book is based on the work of researchers from many disciplines and employs a sociological framework to account for the peculiar strains, conflict and ambiguities associated with the foreman's role.

1 Introduction

This is a study of a position within complex organisations and the performance of people in that position. From this statement of intent can be seen two key words and concepts for the study—organisation and position. The translation of these two words into behavioural concepts provides the cornerstone for this analysis of the industrial foreman. Organisations which are studied are primarily industrial in nature and the role concentrated upon is that of the foremen in such organisations.

Taking the notion of organisation first, social scientists have frequently noted that there has been a significant shift towards larger organisations in modern society—whether they be industrial organisations or not. In modern society, individuals are surrounded by organisations from ‘the cradle to the grave’; they are instrumental in shaping the whole essence of social life. This in itself provides sufficient justification for why the social scientist should be interested in complex organisations.

It is really the specific nature of the functions of modern organisations that has led to the dependency of society upon them. In orientation, organisations are basically purposive—they are orientated towards the achievement of goals. These goals can take the form of material products or of providing services. The extent to which the goals of an organisation are actually achieved is usually seen as one measure of how effective the organisation is. The nature of the configuration of the characteristics of organisations in relation to goal achievement has led many social observers to the conclusion that complex organisations are among the most important social inventions of the twentieth century. Such a claim is obviously disputable and, without exploring its validity, it is clear that organisations have provided the opportunity for the realisation, by rational means, of many of the desired ends of society.

It is a feature of complex organisations that they are basically rational structures. They are uniquely capable of combining various functions in a rational way in order to achieve their goals. Beyond the rational combination of functions, however, organisations can only achieve their goals by the utilisation of human skills. Therefore, there must also be a rational combination of human functions, again orientated towards the achievement of goals. In order to do this, organisations can be viewed as large and complex role systems. That is, roles are assigned to different organisation positions which in turn are structured to enhance the realisation of organisation goals.

The use of role systems for the rational pursuit of organisational objectives implies, inter alia, that it is necessary for the organisation to ensure a certain dependability in the performance of these roles. There is, therefore, the requirement that superimposed upon the role system there should be a control system. There must be predictable patterns of role performance and a need for conformity within the organisation. In larger organisations where there is greater interdependence of individual roles arising from a more complex division of labour, the notion of a control system becomes even more of a prerequisite.,

It has always been one of the defining characteristics of complex organisations that there should be formal structures of control. There are several ramifications of such an observation. One of the most important, at least from the point of view of this study, is that there are some positions within organisations that must be defined in such a way that they are able to influence other positions. It is to such a position of influence that the present study addresses itself—the position of foreman.

An understanding of both the position and role of the foreman in industry is important for social scientist and practising manager alike. As the study demonstrates, the foreman occupies a position in the industrial hierarchy that enables many unusual social relationships to be explored. The power and status relationships can be explored by taking such a crucial role and position; organisational change in terms of the changing role of the foreman can also be analysed. The pressures on role performance of this position present another area to the social scientist. In brief, such a study could make a contribution to our knowledge of organisation functioning. In both of these senses, therefore, the use of both role theory and organisation theory in the study are crucial.

Equally important is the part that the study can play in furthering the knowledge of supervisory roles for the practising manager. The kinds of problems that the industrial foreman experiences in the performance of his role are of interest to industrial management, particularly when looked at ‘from a distance’ and, hopefully, with a greater degree of objectivity than the working manager could hope to achieve. Again, an understanding of the role is of interest to the manager since most industrial organisations have gone through, or are at present going through, a period when they have to take a fresh look at their foremen. New job definitions and job schedules often need to be written for foremen because of the changing industrial circumstances. Thus, for example, the changes that are discussed at some length later in the study relate to the traditional functions of the foreman and the way in which many of these functions have been given to staff specialists of all kinds such as personnel officers, quality control specialists, and so on. These changes have led to new power structures and new structures dictating social relationships, so that the working manager needs to be aware both of the actual changes that have occurred and the nature of possible future changes.

The case being made for a study of this nature, therefore, is that both social scientists and managers need to know more about supervisory positions in so far as individuals in these positions represent a very important function in the modern industrial organisation. Foremen play a crucial part in determining whether organisational goals are realised or not. Central to the thesis being put forward here is the point that the effectiveness of foremen is the responsibility of management. The way in which the job of foreman is designed, the functions allocated to the foreman and the responsibilities allowed the foreman are all determined by management. In this sense, therefore, management can determine the extent to which the organisation is performing effectively. But likewise, it is argued, management can only produce an effective supervisory body within its organisation when it has sufficient knowledge of that body. It is here that the social scientist can aid the manager. Should a rationalisation be necessary for such a study, it could be stated in terms of sequential influence. The social scientist is able to derive information relating to the foreman and to foreman performance. This information can be transmitted to the manager who in turn is able to have an influence upon the foreman role. Such influence is designed to produce greater organisational effectiveness. A study such as this, therefore, has a two-fold purpose. First, to increase our knowledge relating to industrial organisations and organisational roles; and, second, to aid the manager in making his organisation more effective by providing badly needed information about a key organisational role.

The major task set for this study—examining the theory and practice of the foreman role—must inevitably have various residual consequences. Such consequences can be seen in both the research strategy or methodology and in the theoretical perspectives employed. Taking the first point of methodology, any brief survey of the literature on industrial behaviour and practice shows that there has already been a great deal of work carried out to investigate the nature of the role of the industrial foreman. One of the guiding propositions, and to some extent the impetus as well, for this analysis is that little of this work is of much relevance to the theorist or practitioner. Such a broad generalisation can be defended, as in fact it is later in the study, on the grounds that very little attempt has been made to relate the work of one researcher to another. As far as the present writer knows, there is nowhere to be found a comprehensive survey of research findings which integrate the results into a comprehensive analysis of the foreman role.

Past research differs from the present in the emphasis placed upon the descriptive features of the foreman role. In effect, the emphasis used by many previous writers has been a mainly demographic one, rather than a more analytical one, say within the discipline of sociology. Taking these two approaches of demography and sociology, they are similar in that both examine the effect of one factor upon another factor. The factors or variables chosen are really only relevant for the purpose of prediction. But this represents the particular method of demography rather than the method and purpose of sociology. Thus, both demographers and sociologists make use of ‘social indicators’ such as the social and economic status of the foreman, the organisational climate in which the role operates and the organisational context. For a descriptive level of understanding the method of social indicators is adequate, but the method becomes inadequate when the social process needs analysis. Such a process might be the effect of the foreman's class position upon the functioning of his role. As sociological analysis frequently uses social indicators and often such a method can add to our knowledge, the method should not be rejected out of hand. But the relative usage of such a method is the important factor. Thus, sociological research uses social indicators as a kind of shorthand—a method for increasing our understanding of a particular social process of interest. Social indicators are then used as a secondary method and are not of primary concern.

Another aim of sociological research is explanation. Thus, sociology is concerned with how X can affect Y in a particular way and under certain conditions. The ‘particular way’ and the ‘certain conditions’ can be specified—the result is a quantification of the actual process of interaction amongst variables. Demographic research is concerned with a similar relationship but does not quantify this process. Instead, its primary aim is the provision of an outline of knowledge aiding prediction. Whereas sociology is concerned with the ‘how’ of the relationship, demography is concerned with other ends. The amount of directly relevant knowledge is thus reduced.

Social research can take many forms, depending on the nature of the problem and the kind of information desired from the research. Thus, it is possible to distinguish descriptive, formulative, exploratory and explanatory research. One of the aims of this study is to provide both an exploratory and explanatory study of the foreman role, making every effort to avoid the specifically demographic analysis as discussed above.

Compared with the natural and physical sciences, the social sciences are at a disadvantage because of their relative youth. In any one branch of the social sciences there is not enough evidence on any particular subject, or at most there is enough evidence but this is so scattered that it is difficult to comprehend the nature of the social reality being examined. The lack of evidence, or lack of collated evidence, means that there is rarely a well-developed theory for future research problems or for hypotheses to be deduced from the theory. Where theory does exist in the social sciences, it is often either too general or too specific to be of great assistance in restructuring further hypotheses for future research.

Given this situation, it is possible to discuss the nature of exploratory research since this particular analysis takes that form more than any other. In essence, exploratory research enables the researcher to gain experience which will be of value in further research for the formulation of hypotheses and the posing of specific problems associated with the research. Exploratory research fulfils several functions in addition to this. First, by examining the area in which further research points, it is possible to discuss the way in which practical problems may arise in further research. Second, such research can provide, as Selltiz points out, ‘a census of problems regarded as urgent by social practitioners’ (1959, p. 33).

Some writers have suggested that exploratory research has little significance for the development of knowledge in the social sciences, since it rarely, in isolation, provides much of a contribution to knowledge. This charge, however, is unfounded. At the very least, research of this nature provides information which is of value to future research and can aid in problems that have a high priority for ‘social practitioners’. Also, there is implicit in the charge made an assumption that only experimental and explanatory research is of any scientific value. Again, this assumption is an erroneous one. Explanatory and experimental research, for them to have any social significance, must be more or less relevant to wider issues than the specific area of the research itself. For this relevance, there must be an exploration of all the parameters of the problem in question.

The analysis of an area such as the foreman role requires a strict theoretical base. The role is taken at a universal level and, as mentioned, an attempt is made at integrating the important variables affecting supervisory behaviour. Clearly, these variables need to be integrated in some way if any sense is to be made of the role in question. The problem of inter-relating and integrating the variables is really a problem of a strong theoretical framework.

Many theoretical frameworks are available to the social scientist working in the broad area of organisational roles, but the choice of one over the others is not one of random selection. Rather, it is a problem of choice based on the objectives or goals of the study. With the goal of integration in mind, an adaptive open systems model is used in this study. Such a theoretical approach, as advocated in Chapter 2, is advanced because, being open in character, the systems view can incorporate the many variables that are analysed in this study.

The systems viewpoint has the added advantage that it does enable other theoretical approaches to be incorporated in the analysis. Two of the most ‘popular’ frameworks available to the social scientist in the contemporary literature are considered as viable alternatives in Chapter 2, but the systems approach is decided upon because this does enable the inclusion of many of the important points from both ‘grounded theory’ and ‘social action theory’. Grounded theory, as advanced by Glaser and Strauss (1967), emphasises that social research should be used to generate theories—theory should be discovered from data. Thus, if the proposition made earlier regarding the non-integration of data on foremen into a coherent theoretical framework is accepted, this study, by re-analysing the data, is capable of generating grounded theory. With the other theoretical approach of social action theory the emphasis is upon the meaning of social action for the individual. Thus, the ends of action, the means available to attain these ends and the consequences of action are examined. The systems approach used in this study, by concentrating upon the performance of an organisational role, is able to incorporate many aspects of social action theory.

Although, as Chapter 2 shows, the model used is that of a complex adaptive system, the actual operationalisation is remarkably simple. A system is taken as a construction of inputs, conversions and outputs, or, in terms of the variables analysed, one of independent, intervening and dependent variables respectively. The foreman role, for analytical purposes only, is taken to be the total system and this can be seen as being divided into three broad sub-systems, each with varying types of variables.

Before the three sub-systems can be examined in detail, it is necessary to examine the role of the foreman in general terms. Chapter 3 makes some attempt at clearing the confusion that surrounds the meaning of the term ‘foreman’. It is shown that the actual identification of foremen in the industrial setting is difficult and that any attempt at a definition becomes even more difficult because of the heterogeneity of supervisory tasks in modern industry. Aspects of the foreman role that are often discussed in the literature are also examined in this chapter and include features such as role ambiguity and marginality, the nature of role conflict and the application of the historical perspective in the analysis of the foreman role.

Once this confusion concerning the foreman role has been cleared, the analysis of the role in terms of the theoretical perspective developed in Chapter 2 is attempted. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 examine the three sub-systems of the role at the organisation, group and individual levels respectively. As mentioned, at each of these sub-system levels the variables influencing the role are analysed and discussed in terms of the nature of their dependency. At each sub-system level a portion of the total model is built up, but integration of these ‘portions’ cannot take place until the final chapter.

It might be argued that by taking each variable separately and compartmentalising it, perhaps at times rather arbitrarily, into the three sub-systems delineated could lead to methodological problems, particularly the problem of reductionism. Initially, there might be a valid argument, but when all the variables are integrated into the total system model of the foreman role, the usefulness and validity of the approach is demonstrated. Again, it might be argued that some variables are wrongly placed in terms of their general dependency and here there might be a more reasoned basis for disputing the approach used. To counter such an argument would be difficult, except to say that the ‘positioning’ of variables in the total system model is done on the basis of the available evidence which appears most relevant to the study. Although arbitrariness might appear to be present, for this study the positioning developed throughout seems to be most appropriate. This is not to say, however, that another study of another organisational role would necessarily follow such a schema. Given different task and situational variables a great deal of ‘re-shuffling’ of the variables might take place.

As discussed above, the final chapter attempts to integrate the findings relating to foremen into a coherent framework. It is hoped that the initial objective of providing coherence to a scattered area of analysis is achieved by this method. But in addition to this, the study is capable of looking at some of the practical issues involved in supervisory behaviour. In the final chapter some of these issues are examined in the hope that the practising foreman and manager may derive some useful information from the study. In particular, the two aspects of supervisory training and motivation are concentrated upon because of the great deal of confusion that...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The Theoretical Model
• 3 Identifying and Defining the Foreman
• 4 Foremen and the Organisational Sub-System
• 5 The Foreman and the Group
• 6 The Individual Characteristics of Foremen
• 7 Implications and Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index